The Democrat’s intersectional caucus has crumbled.
Amongst other things, last week’s election proved that what is popular on Harvard Yard and at Columbia is not so with the majority of Americans.
The progressive Left, which has firmly taken control of large swathes of the Democratic Party, has been advancing an ideology over the past several years that seeks to dismantle American society, government, exceptionalism, and progress on critical social issues. In the name of &#8220;equity,&#8221; they called to defund the police, globalize the intifada, tear down monuments to historical American figures, and propagate the absurd notion that gender is a social construct — ignoring science and reality in the process. They have divided us by race and religion under the guise of “anti-racism.” They’ve attacked capitalism and the Constitution, and condemned the very society that granted them the freedoms to voice these radical claims. They insist on focusing on new “realities” rather than kitchen table issues, such as the economy and public safety.
Of course, over the past several years any pushback against this ideology was met with accusations of racism, fascism or the like. If you hesitate to conform, and you’re accused of “microaggressions.” If you ask questions, you must be a conspiracy theorist. If you&#8217;re white, you’re automatically labeled &#8220;privileged&#8221; and part of the problem. If you fail to bow to the religion of wokeism, and you&#8217;re painted as a societal threat. And if you follow the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you’re dismissed as a “Bible thumper.”
They call it “postmodernism.” They call it “intersectionality.” They call it &#8220;diversity, equity, and inclusion.&#8221; But in truth, it is none of these things. It is a philosophy that, if fully implemented, will destroy America. Thankfully, this political ideology was soundly rejected by Americans on November 5. 
Over 73 million voters — across all races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds — said no. It was a resounding message; or, it should be. The GOP is poised to control the White House, the Senate, and, in all likelihood, the House. Every state in the union, except Utah and Washington, saw significant Republican gains. Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, Jews, men, and (most) women alike shifted decisively toward Trump and the GOP, down-ballot.
Americans were not fooled. They rejected the narrative pushed by Kamala Harris, Democratic leadership, and the mainstream media. Americans are clearly tired of hearing the media and Democrats downplay the consequences of open borders, sky-high inflation, and rising crime in our streets. They rejected the absurd labels that President Trump is a Nazi, a fascist, a sexist, a dictator, and a criminal. They saw through the media’s and celebrity elite’s baseless attacks and voted for what matters to them the most by voting for President Trump.
With this historical shift, the Republican party has an opportunity to cement real political change in our nation. However, the only manner to accomplish this is to deliver. The President and Congress must move quickly to close the border, to open up energy markets, to reestablish American military deterrence around the world, to remove any federal regulatory blockade which stifles economic growth, and to bring prosperity and security back to the streets of our nation.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a></h3>
The Democrats on the other hand face two choices. The first is to continue down the path that brought them to their biggest defeat in recent history. Many in the media have already taken this path, blaming everyone but the Democrats for their own loss. Claims that racism and sexism fueled Harris’ loss ironically reveals a bigotry of the out-of-touch elite toward the rest of America. The disconnect is as bewildering as it is offensive. If Democrats continue to simply blame the voters, they will only lose more ground across our great nation, which will continue to turn more and more red.
The second option is for Democrats to publicly acknowledge the reality that the American people are not going to march towards socialism, wokeism and a DEI-dominated society. After admitting this error, the Democrats would need to recalibrate their policies on the issues that are core to most Americans: security, a strong economy and the preservation of freedom — not bizarre pronouns and critical race theory.
However, in the week or so that has passed since the election, the Democrat leadership and the mainstream media alike appear to have learned nothing. It continues to be more of the same. With few exceptions, Democrats continue to go down the path which led them to last week’s colossal defeat. If this continues to be the case, the “red wave” that was the 2024 election will last several election cycles. Honestly, I for one, couldn’t be more thrilled.
* * *
Gabriel Groisman is a Miami-based government affairs consultant, attorney, the former Mayor of Bal Harbour, and host of the Standpoint with Gabe Groisman podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-VOTE-POLITICS-DEMOCRATS

Will The Democrats Learn From This Election?

2024 Election

Democrats

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Donald Trump

Equity

Kamala Harris

Opinion

Republicans

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment?”
This is the question that was asked of the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, MIT and Harvard on Tuesday in Congress..
Not one president simply answered, &#8220;Yes.&#8221;
High school seniors have a lot on their minds. Beyond the regular trials and tribulations of an American teenager, upperclassmen in high schools across America spend much of their time deciding which college they should attend. The options are vast. The American post-secondary education system is robust and options are aplenty.
But for American Jewish high school students, the question they suddenly need to ask is whether they will be safe on the college campus of their choosing. Unfortunately, the answer at many of our nation’s top universities is unequivocally &#8220;No.&#8221;
This is where we are as a society in America today. The data is as stark as the anecdotal evidence. Even before the outburst of overt and aggressive anti-Semitism on campuses that came after Hamas’ atrocious, inhumane terror attacks on Israeli civilians on October 7, Jewish college students were not feeling safe on college campuses across the country.
The trouble was that before October 7 no one seemed to believe them.
In the school year prior to the October 7 attacks, almost 75% of Jewish college students in American directly experienced anti-Semitism. Anti-Jewish hate crimes led the FBI’s statistics of hate crimes against a religious group by a large margin, even before this school year’s explosion of anti-Semitism. The anti-Semites in and around college campuses often yelled foul when being charged with being anti-Semites and instead often retorted that they were simply anti-Israel, anti-colonialism, or anti-Netanyahu.
In desperate need of finding a cover for their Jew-hatred, college students and professors that engaged in obvious anti-Semitism grasped at proverbial straws to hide behind other supposed social justice issues of the day. Categorizing Israel and the Jewish people as part of the “oppressor class,” they reasoned, allowed them to justify, defend, and even celebrate the mass rape and slaughter of over 1,400 Israeli civilians on October 7.
This asinine and dangerous position is expressed at rally after rally, in opinion pieces published in school papers, in lectures by professors, and on social media. This is the fallacious lens through which so many in academia have decided to view the world. Their faux-intellectualism and moral ineptitude has been exposed since October 7. Since then, professors and college students alike simply call for the end of the Jewish people and/or the Jewish state. They call for slitting the throats of Jews or for a global intifada. Students are harassed and assaulted while walking through campus. Universities, for the most part, allow this all to happen and advise the Jewish students that they should go in through the back door or hide in the library until it is over.
Gone are the days of intellectual debates on college campuses, where viewpoints are expressed and debated. After years of telling professors and students alike that language can be violent, microaggressions are to be challenged, safe spaces must be created for marginalized groups, and equity offices must be established to protect all students, it turns out that none of those platitudes apply to the Jewish community. When it comes to Jews, students and professors seem to have carte blanche to call for their murder, celebrate their mass rape, and to harass and intimidate Jewish students across the country.
Today, many college campuses are more reminiscent of the 1930s Germany, where the Nazis pushed their ideologies, than the American university system that educated so many for the past several decades.
The American people heard three university presidents testifying before Congress about the rise of anti-Semitism on their campuses on Tuesday. The hearing was jaw-dropping. For the most part, these elite university presidents at UPenn, MIT and Harvard, refused to clearly condemn anti-Semitism and seemed almost smug in their responses about calls for genocide of Jewish students on campus. Hiding behind the First Amendment was a convenient, yet legally deficient space to bury their condoning of Jew-hatred.
In short, you may have a constitutionally protected right to say something, but you don’t have a constitutional right to go to these universities. Moreover, there are limits to our constitutional rights. The Second Amendment provides Americans the right to carry a weapon, yet individuals aren’t permitted to carry a weapon on college campuses in almost half the states in our country. Similarly, the First Amendment has well established limitations, including incitement of violence, intimidation and harassment. These limitations are well-established at these universities; they would surely (and justly) expel, fire or discipline students or faculty calling for the mass murder of blacks, gays, or any other group of people.
The university presidents, however, were not making legal arguments; they were simply looking for a place to hide their anti-Semitic policies. Rest assured that these three University presidents are not alone.
American Jewish college students are being subjected to overt hatred, harassment and intimidation in many universities across our nation. The anti-Semitic conduct is coming not only from students, but from staff and faculty, all while being protected by their administrations.
Of course, there are exceptions. Not every school is a hotbed for anti-Semitism in our nation, but that is the point. Jewish high school students today are forced to decide which college is right for them not on the basis of the best academic programs for them, but instead whether the university they want to attend will even be safe for them.
Our tolerance for anti-Semitism in our nation’s institutions, including our universities, must be zero. University boards must hold their presidents and deans accountable. The temperature has risen to intolerable levels for Jews across our great nation, and no place is this more evident than in our nation’s top universities.
Remember, the students of today are our political and social leaders of tomorrow. It is the responsibility of all Americans to make it clear — in no unequivocal terms — that anti-Semitism will no longer be accepted in our institutions. While ending the world’s oldest and most pervasive form of hatred — Jew-hatred — will not be achievable, insuring that our universities protect Jewish students and dispose of rabid antisemitic students, faculty and administrators is a good start.
<div class="yj6qo">Gabriel Groisman is the former mayor of Bal Harbour, Florida.</div>
<div class="adL"></div>

University Presidents Testify In House Hearing On Campus Antisemitism

Jew-Hatred On Campus. Will America Tolerate It?

Anti-Semitism

Harvard

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

U.S. House of Representatives

Universities

University of Pennsylvania

Israel’s democratically elected legislature, the Knesset, is in the midst of voting on a series of laws that would scale back the power of the unelected judiciary and place more power in the elected body. Tens of thousands of Israelis along with Israel’s usual detractors are up in arms, calling this &#8220;tyranny&#8221; and the “end of democracy.”
To start, those who continue to push the “end of democracy” narrative are objectively counterfactual, counterproductive, and over-reactionary. When a democratically elected body makes efforts to wrangle back power from those appointed by a committee controlled by the Bar Association and the judiciary itself, it is, in fact, putting more “power” into the hands of the “people.” In simple terms, making the political system more “democratic.”
Democratic governments around the world take many different forms, from constitutional republics, like the United States, to parliamentary systems, like the United Kingdom, and many variations there between. Israel is just shy of 75 years young, and is still in the nascent stages of forming what its democracy will look like. For instance, while its founders set out to form a constitution, none has yet been put in place. The entire process the democratically-elected government is going through is at the very core of democracy.
While it’s hard to see it through the hysterics, Israel’s proposed judicial reforms are, in fact, imperfect in their current state. However, this is the case when most laws are initially proposed. This is why there is a process, in most (or all) democracies in the world, Israel included, that allows for debate, input, discussion, and ultimately amendments. Those opposing the judicial reforms would be better served by pushing for constructive dialogue rather than destructive protests. Calls for the Knesset to change direction simply because of the nightly protests should fall on deaf ears, as a well-functioning government should never cave to what would essentially be mob rule.
Taking a quick step back, the proposed judicial reforms aim to accomplish five things: (1) Changing the process of selecting judges, so as to give the governing coalition of the Knesset a majority in the judicial selection committee; (2) Prohibiting the Supreme Court from making decisions based “on reasonability” rather than on laws passed by the Knesset; (3) Changing legal opinions of general counsels of government departments, appointed by the attorney general, from binding to advisory; (4) Raising the standard for the Supreme Court to strike down a law passed by the Knesset to 11 out of the 15 judges; and (5) Providing the Knesset the capacity to override a decision by the Supreme Court that strikes down a law passed by the Knesset with a majority of the Knesset members. Of course, the proposals are more nuanced than the above-outlined, but these are the general strokes of the proposals.
That judicial reforms are needed is the broad consensus view. The self-elected judiciary has become hyper-political, if not hostile, to the government, to the ultra-Orthodox, and to the conservative majority. The Supreme Court has also unilaterally expanded its own power by granting itself powers of judicial review and making key decisions based on its subjective interpretation of “reasonability,” and general, undefined concepts of dignity and liberty. The impact of the Supreme Court’s rulings is even more far reaching, given that the Israeli Supreme Court is a Court of first instance, in that almost anyone can file claims directly with the Court on a host of issues. At bottom, an unelected branch of government has run amok and the Knesset is looking to rein it in through these reforms.
The only truly controversial or delicate provision in the proposed reforms, in my opinion, is the “override clause.” The fact that the Knesset is seeking to include an override clause is not a problem per se. Given the past relationship between the branches, and the importance given by the elected body to ensuring that those elected by the people have final say on critical issues, the ability to override the Court’s decision makes sense. Israel would not be alone in implementing an express “override clause.” Canada, a country which no one would seriously charge as “non-democratic,” has a similar law, which permits the Parliament to pass a law “notwithstanding” their Court’s having found that law to be unconstitutional.
Still, for purposes of political stability, which is critical for the social and economic well-being of any nation, the issues which should qualify for override should be very limited and an override should only pass with a supermajority of the Knesset. These limitations would all but guarantee that the override would only be used sparingly and could not be abused by any party to satisfy the political whims of the day.
Finally, the governing coalition should learn from the mistakes of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in 2013, when they removed the 60-vote filibuster for the president&#8217;s nominees, requiring only a simple majority instead. This was a shrewd move in the short term to get President Obama’s nominees seated, but when control of the Senate shifted back to the Republicans, Democrats quickly regretted that the Republicans could pass through the president&#8217;s nominees without the support of a single Democrat.
In Israel today, it is hard to see when and how the political Left could return to power. But, politics lives on a pendulum, and when (not if) political control inevitably shifts in Israel, those in control of the Knesset today will regret having a law in place which requires only a simple majority to override the Supreme Court.
At the end, the Likud party and its coalition partners should not make any decisions based on the hysterical protests and threats of its detractors. Still, the government shouldn’t rush through the reforms without robust and honest debate about its impact. Particular care should be taken to limit the override clause so as to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court while providing the supermajority of the Knesset the ability to have final say on critical issues that go to the heart of the Jewish and Democratic State of Israel.
Gabriel Groisman is a partner at LSN Partners in Miami, Florida, a Jewish rights leader and the former mayor of Bal Harbour, Florida
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Protests Continue Over Proposed Judicial Overhaul In Israel

Israel Is Reforming Its Judiciary. It’s Not Perfect, It’s Democracy. 

Democracy

Israel

Judiciary

Middle East

World

The House Foreign Affairs committee passed an anti-BDS resolution (H.R. 246) today unanimously. One of its co-sponsors, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) announced the passage via Twitter:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Great News! <a href="https://twitter.com/HouseForeign?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HouseForeign</a> just passed HRes246 opposing the BDS movement, which is a blatantly anti-Israel &amp; anti-Semitic effort that targets Israel &amp; the Jewish people. The full House should pass this reso ASAP &amp; then do something about it by passing S-1/HR336 as well!
— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1151550204241424385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
For the uninitiated, BDS is the anti-Israel movement that calls for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against the State of Israel, Israeli academics, businesses, and more. The movement has been a key catalyst in the meteoric rise in anti-Semitism around the world. Twenty-six states and dozens of cities have passed resolutions condemning the movement and prohibiting government entities from contracting with companies who engage in BDS. Now, the U.S House of Representatives is set to vote and pass a resolution opposing the movement, as well.
On any other week the Jewish community, and the pro-Israel community at large, would be celebrating the House’s condemnation of the BDS movement as bigoted and anti-Semitic. Why is this week different than all other weeks?
This week a U.S. congresswoman introduced a counter-resolution advocating for boycotts of Israel, and even <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49651/hammer-ilhan-omar-wrong-here-why-anti-bds-laws-are-josh-hammer">likening the State of Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa</a>. While the resolution itself only serves as a declaration to affirm Americans’ rights to commercial boycotts “in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad,” the resolution’s author, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), has made clear that the intent of her resolution is to support the BDS movement against Israel. She explained that her resolution is “an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement.” Not surprisingly, the resolution has been celebrated by the National BDS National Committee’s Hind Awwad, who stated to Al Jazeera that this resolution is “ground-breaking” and serves to “inspire human rights defenders everywhere, including BDS activists for Palestinians rights.”
Omar’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions have been well documented. The anti-Israel position of her resolution co-sponsor, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), is also well known. However, the significance of this resolution cannot be understated. That the resolution will certainly fail is largely irrelevant. That the House is approaching an open debate about whether boycotts of Israel and Israeli-owned businesses are appropriate is telling. And, given the House’s inability to clearly and unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism after Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments in March, the prospect of a House debate on the boycott of Israel is worrisome — to say the least.
What’s worse is that despite the political hysteria about Reps. Tlaib and Omar, who have expressed sharp anti-Israel and anti-Semitic beliefs, their positions had previously mostly lived on the sidelines. But, what Tlaib and Omar understand all too well is that while they may not be able to change the U.S.’s staunch support for Israel, they can certainly change the tenor of the national conversation surrounding Israel. And change the conversation they have. Fifty-five years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, we have members of the U.S. Congress advocating for discrimination based on religion or national origin. It seems that Tlaib and Omar do not believe that Israelis and Jews should be protected under the Civil Rights Act. And, their timing is impeccable. Just a few days after President Trump’s incendiary and offensive comments, when he told Reps. Tlaib, Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) that they should “go back” to the “places from which they came,” the national spotlight is on these young congresswomen to see how they respond. With the spotlight shining bright on their faces, and the anti-Trumpers always eager to support them, Reps. Omar and Tlaib are using this moment to advocate against the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
It is imperative for the Jewish community — whether Democrat or Republican — to strongly oppose Omar and Tlaib’s efforts to malign Israel and the Jewish people via this resolution. The Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 presidential primary candidates are watching to see how the Jewish community, and the pro-Israel community at large, will respond to this effort. It is up to the people for them to understand that the U.S. needs to continue to stand steadfast with the one and only Jewish State. All Americans must understand that this resolution is an attack upon the Jewish people. And with anti-Semitism at unbearable levels in the U.S. and abroad alike, this resolution acts to add fuel to the fire, placing the Jewish community in a precarious position. Omar’s resolution must be soundly rejected by all.
Gabriel Groisman is the Mayor of Bal Harbour, Florida and an attorney. Follow him on Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groismangabriel/">@groismangabriel</a> and on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/gabegroisman">@gabegroisman</a>.

Menu

Gabriel Groisman

Will The Democrats Learn From This Election?

Jew-Hatred On Campus. Will America Tolerate It?

Israel Is Reforming Its Judiciary. It’s Not Perfect, It’s Democracy.

GROISMAN: Ilhan Omar’s Pro-Boycott Resolution Must Be Rejected